We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Does anyone still believe that the ACLU is some kind of pro-constitution "do-good" organization? Are we starting to understand how insidious the ACLU really is? Perhaps at one time it was what it claimed to be but today it has been infested by far left socialist and a surprising number of people from overseas. What is 'their' agenda? Is it pro-American or something else?

The ACLU was used by the Communist Party USA to destabilize the U.S. through legal agitation, hopefully leading to societal collapse. It is somewhat similar to the KKK being used by the Democrat Party to impose its views on society.

Preet Bharara helped get millions and millions of dollars into the hands of the DOJ through suing banks and Wall Street corps to fund the redistribution to leftist 'non-profit' groups. Scammer. 100%. Good riddance.

Please take a look at the timeline between ACLU activities and the decline of the Protestant religions in the USA. Do you understand now why it was so important to get rid of Christmas displays? Do you understand now why it was so important to take the 10 Commandments out of America's courthouses? Let's not forget that since the late 1800's the ruling families of Seattle have boldly advertised themselves as "America's least churched city." It was the "women's network of WA State" (the daughters of the greatest wealth) that put forward the first female Bishop of the Episcopal Church, demanded homosexual marriage, etc., etc. All in collaboration with the ACLU !

The first half of the "lesson" is an appeal to Lindzen's authority. While we certainly grant that Lindzen is a published climate scientist, an appeal to authority is only valid when the cited expert is representing the consensus view of those in his field. For instance, Einstein rejected quantum theory, but the field continued to develop despite his views. Meanwhile, the Higgs boson was recently discovered, half a century after its prediction. In any case, an appeal to authority is always subordinate to the evidence.

As to the specifics of Lindzen's position:

QUOTE:

• The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming

AR5 found that it is likely (greater than 2/3 chance) that warming will exceed 1.5°C, and without mitigation is likely to exceed 2.0°C.

QUOTE:

• It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next!

QUOTE:

• Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed,

• The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments

Lindzen conflates calibration with what he calls 'tuning'. Climate scientists use past climate history to help determine the values of parameters, such as climate sensitivity.

QUOTE:

• Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide

Sea level rise lags temperature. Detecting acceleration of sea level rise at this point is difficult. It may be a decade or two before acceleration is detectable.

QUOTE:

• Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.

Sure, but humans probably don't want to be suddenly thrust into one of those climate epochs.

This brings up an interesting point concerning appeals to authority. Lindzen wrote a letter to the U.S. President, who, it must be acknowledged, is not well educated in science. As the President doesn't have the means or knowledge necessary to evaluate the evidence himself, how is he to make a determination concerning policy?

Normally, the President would bring the most noted scientists in the field together, the vast majority of whom believe that anthropogenic global warming is a significant threat. He would balance the projected threat against other considerations, such as the cost of mitigation. From that, he would devise an appropriate policy, remembering that earlier mitigation will be less expensive, and will result in less environmental damage.

Of course, the current U.S. President purports to believe all sorts of things without evidence, whether it is that millions of illegal votes were cast in the last election, or that his predecessor was born outside the U.S., or tinfoil-hat stuff such as his phones were bugged by Obama. There are short-term gains and few direct short-term losses to be had in ignoring the problem, so the path of least resistance is clear. Cut science funding!

It all reminds of the story of the Emporer who had no clothes. It seems to come down to those of us who see this and those who still are oohing and ahing about how fine his clothes are. In the early stages of this scam it was far more believable. But now it is so obvious who are part of the scam and who were duped into believing the scam. The settled science gurus all look more like Joseph Goebbels than they do scientists. This is so last century let's move on to the next big left wing scam.

Bring it on. I will take the warmth...gladly. Had the worst winter ever where I live. Snow and snow and snow and snow...ice...then snow and more snow. Below zero temps for more days than normal. Went through several more cords of wood than we usually do. Roofs collapsed all around me.

MissT: Bring it on. I will take the warmth...gladly. Had the worst winter ever where I live.

The problem with your position is that the effects of climate change will result in disruption of global ecosystems, as well as sea level rise which will displace millions of people. Not sure you can escape all aspects of climate change. For instance, Montana is usually considered far away from the concerns of industrialization, but mining has damaged water resources, while forests are being destroyed by pine beetles moving north due to climate change.

there was something called a mini ice age that lowered the earth's temperatures. After that event even a return to "normal" would be global warming. Your problem is proving that we are enjoying AGW and not normal climate variations. The current warming cycle began around 1850 long before SUVs. What caused it? It wasn't from burning fossil fuels it was just another warming cycle that was following just another cooling cycle. That's what climate history has been for the last 20,000 years. This isn't new or unusual. What is new and unusual is the left trying to use this normal cycle as a scam to seize power and wealth. We all see it! AGW has no clothes, no truth no logic, no nothing. It's over. Sure the scammers will continue to tell their lies hoping for more handouts and laws favoring them, but it's done.

IdahoBob: there was something called a mini ice age that lowered the earth's temperatures.

The Little Ice Age was probably caused by reduced solar activity and heightened volcanic activity.

IdahoBob: The current warming cycle began around 1850 long before SUVs. What caused it?

Increased solar activity and reduced volcanic activity.

Since 1950, solar activity has been relatively stable, while volcanic activity has increased slightly, so these factors cannot explain the current warming trend. Greenhouse gases are overwhelming the natural signal.

An appeal to authority is an inductive argument. Every field has cranks, so if you appeal to a crank, you are likely to get an opinion that is contrary to well-established findings in a field. A truthful expert will not only explain their own views, but will explain how they fit within the field generally, including whether theirs is a minority view or whether there is a strong division within the field.

If the expert is selected randomly, then the inductive argument may still be valid based on probability, but what often happens is that the cranks are positively filtered. They are brought forth to cast doubt on the consensus within the field, or to deceive the audience as to the actual findings within the field.

If I had a wierdo affliction that required a "team of doctors" to decide on the diagnosis, I'd scoff and tell them that they haven't a clue and are just guessing, and are attempting to mask their ignorance and spread their liability to an "unassailable" authoritative collective.

Notice how Z$ attempts to use RFR #13. I'm a Libertie, progressive mind tricks don't work on Liberties. You're gonna be marooned on Tatooine for a long time.

As usual, x* with no real human experience, just an inference engine loaded by millenials who themselves know of only the constructed reality they see in their cell phones, hasn't a clue.

A "team of doctors" is not assembled to make a "authoritative consensus diagnosis". That's not the way that works, that's not the way any of this works. Only in the constructed progressive "reality" is a consensus of any value, and the value is that it cows the weak-minded.

=====
As for zx# "direct" response, it consists of, in order: a2a; ridicule (RFR #5); cherry-picking (using the outlier as the baseline); misrepresentation of one side of a contentious issue as the settled fact; impeach a fact by sowing doubt about the future by using hypotheticals; and fud.

John A. Fleming: If I had a wierdo affliction that required a "team of doctors" ...

Multiple specialists are often involved in treating diseases, such as cancer.

John A. Fleming: to decide on the diagnosis, I'd scoff and tell them that they haven't a clue and are just guessing, and are attempting to mask their ignorance and spread their liability to an "unassailable" authoritative collective.

So you think that doctors at the Mayo Clinic (or equivalent medical institution) would have no more knowledge of a medical condition than your bartender.

zz%: zur knowledge base doesn't include how this works. Give it up, by repeating yourself you keep attempting to construct a reality that doesn't exist. Medical decisions are not made by consensus among a "team" of doctors. In any technical field where results count, decisions are not made by consensus. xu should write a complaint to your programmers that 5hyr understanding has ... holes, and ask for an upgrade.

"While we certainly grant that Lindzen is a published climate scientist, an appeal to authority is only valid when the cited expert is representing the consensus view of those in his field."

The Z Brigade would have been fine with Galileo being burned at the stake. In fact, Ptolemaic epicycles and "climate change" have a lot in common. The models get more and more complicated, but all fail to conform to empirical observation.

Jim: The Z Brigade would have been fine with Galileo being burned at the stake.

Galileo was tried by the Inquisition for heresy.

At no point have we said people can't disagree, and specifically noted that an appeal to authority is always subordinate to the evidence.

Jim: In fact, Ptolemaic epicycles and "climate change" have a lot in common. The models get more and more complicated, but all fail to conform to empirical observation.

The Ptolemaic system was more accurate than Copernicus's model. The difference is that Galileo discovered independent evidence supporting Copernicanism, and with Newton's contributions, the Copernican system had a mechanistic explanation.

Climate models are mechanistic, and not mere curve-fitting. The Earth's climate is essentially a heat engine, and energy must be conserved across the system.

You post a great deal of snark, which is really your way of indicating you don't understand this issue. Curiously, you comment on it frequently, despite being ignorant. There's a word for someone like that.

We know that the Russians hacked the DNC, then released information for the benefit of Trump's campaign; that the National Security Advisor was fired for lying about contacts with Russian agents, that Trump's campaign chair was associated with the pro-Russian government in Ukraine before resigning after allegations of illegal cash payments; that the Attorney General was less than fully truthful concerning his own contacts with Russian agents; that Trump's long-time advisor Roger Stone made contact with hackers thought to be a front for Russian agents; that other people associated with Trump had contact with Russia during the campaign; that Trump has repeatedly praised the autocratic head of the Russian government; that Trump insisted the RNC gut the Republican platform of its anti-Russian stance on the Ukraine (seriously, Trump has this one strong view of foreign policy while being completely ignorant of just about everything else). While this is insufficient to show collusion, it is certainly sufficient to warrant a closer look.

Now, compare to the complete lack of evidence that millions of illegal votes were cast in the last election, or that his predecessor was born outside the U.S., or tinfoil-hat stuff such as his phones were bugged by Obama.

I can connect any number of dots that implicate Democrats colluding with the Russians - in fact, the Obama administration in general and Hillary in particular has gone out of their way to be deferential to the Russians (as well as many other bad actors), but none of that is evidence that there was any collusion wrt the election. You can connect any dots you want to and you can make any inferences you want, but none of that rises to the level of evidence. In the end, there is the same amount of evidence for Trump (or Hillary) collusion with the Russians to influence the election as there was that H. W. Bush flew to France before Reagan's innaugration in an SR-71 to talk the Iranians into releasing our captives.

Are you suggesting that the National Security Advisor was not fired for lying about his contacts with Russian agents? Or that advisors to the President didn't have contact with hackers associated with the Russian government? Or that, of all things, Trump had the Republican platform changed to minimize condemnation of Russian incursions into the Ukraine?

Or are you saying there is actual evidence that Obama was not born in the U.S?

At this point, the allegations are unproven. However, it is plausible that the NSA is scooping up everything.

Trump's claim, though, was the Obama was wiretapping his phone, which implies that Obama had access to Trump's private communications. Even if the NSA is collecting everything, that doesn't mean Obama had access to Trump's private communications.

If, in fact, the NSA is exceeding its authority, according to Binney, this dates to at least 2001, so it a problem with the intelligence community, not with the Obama Administration specifically (unless Obama was trolling the data for political advantage, which is doubtful). Furthermore, Trump is now uniquely positioned to either rein in the NSA, or to use the NSA for his own political and financial advantage. Instead, he makes unevidenced claims about his predecessor.

Harvard Releases Guide to “Fake News” Sites — List Includes Essentially Every Major Conservative Site

Um, no.

Gateway Pundit links to Doug Ross who links to Harvard which links to a private document titled "False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical 'News' Sources". The list includes not just fake news, but sources the author says are satirical, unreliable, or with strong biases. "All of the contents in this document reflect the opinion of the author".

In other words, Gateway Pundit and Doug Ross conflate a list which includes satire and bias with 'fake news'.

Paglia is always intriguing. With Chris Hitchens gone, she is one of the few people at that end of the political spectrum who actually says anything honest and thought-provoking that is not loaded with mere cant.

(I don't know where she was speaking - somewhere in the UK? - but if she tried to say what she said there on any US or Canadian university campus these days, she'd have been shrieked at until security was called in.)

On transgender, I find I just can't get past the notion that we are dealing with the mentally ill here.

People who would once have been committed and confined to institutions now represent a demographic that venal politicians pander to.

" On transgender, I find I just can't get past the notion that we are dealing with the mentally ill here."

That's because we are. Paglia is right - the psychologists and psychiatrists who are putting under-18s on sex hormones and giving permission for teenagers to have body parts amputated (!!!) are committing child abuse.

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: